Samsung will now fill the void by making chips for the likes of Qualcomm and even for its own products

If Apple and Samsung's turbulent relationship was made into a soap opera, this episode would feature continued separation between the two and Apple's "other lover."

Apple recently signed a new supply deal with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) for iPhone and iPad chips. These orders from Apple will reportedly account for 8 percent of TSMC's 2014 total revenue if Apple buys 30 percent of its chips there, according to Credit Suisse analysts.

If Apple bumps this up to 60 percent in 2015, it will make up 15 percent of TSMC's revenue for that year.

Apple has been distancing itself from Samsung due to competition between Apple's iPhone and Samsung's Android-powered smartphones (such as the Galaxy line). The two have also had an ugly patent war that has soured relations over the years.

Apple's new deal with TSMC isn't great news for Samsung, but it will likely fill the void by making chips for the likes of Qualcomm and even for its own products.

[Image Source: Nerd Array]

At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) back in January, Samsung's President of LSI business Stephen Woo said that it's crucial for the South Korean electronics maker to focus on alternatives to Apple when it comes to the chip sector. In fact, Samsung has been supplying Exynos quad-core chips to Chinese smartphone company Meizu and also to Lenovo's K860 LePhone.

According to Goldman Sachs, Apple will purchase about $8.8 billion USD worth of chips from Samsung this year, which is about 80 percent of Apple's allowance for processors, memory chips and screens. But Apple is expected to move 30 percent of its business away from Samsung next year and about 80 percent by 2017.

It's unlikely that Apple will give all of its chips business to TSMC, since it doesn't want to put all of its eggs in one basket. TSMC will begin supplying the processors in early 2014.

Chips aren't the only hardware Apple and Samsung are phasing out in their relationship. Samsung Display, which has provided Apple with liquid crystal display (LCD) panels for its iPhones and iPads over the years, officially severed its contract with the iDevice maker last fall. Samsung cited cost as the main issue, since Apple has started using Samsung competitors with better prices for displays. Hence, Apple was expecting bigger discounts from Samsung.

He's probably one of those plasma elitists who doesn't realize LCD's (high end) have arguably surpassed Plasma in all the categories it used to excel in. Or are at least "as good", without the worries of burn in, horrible power consumption, and poor brightness light reflection issues.

Having said that, there's no perfect display technology unfortunately. They all have pros and cons.

However the closest thing to a "perfect" display tech is OLED. Which doesn't really exist in a large size yet :(

No LCD has surpassed or gotten "as good as" plasma yet, there are inherent deficiencies to the technology. It can't get a good black so it uses local dimming, which introduces other artifacts like not rendering fine details in dark areas accurately and halo-ing. Movement artifacts in LCDs are still an issue. It cannot reproduce color as accurately nor does it have as good a gamma curve. Anything used to fix its inherent issues also adds input lag since the signal passes through more electronics. Its all a mess, and in the end it still doesn't look as good plasma that costs as much or less.

LCD's main advantage is that it can get very small. If size isn't an issue and if you care about image quality then there really isn't another choice.

It certainly doesn't come from Samsung. Even their plasmas aren't as good as Panasonic's.

quote: However the closest thing to a "perfect" display tech is OLED. Which doesn't really exist in a large size yet :(

I use 17" OLEDs in the field for remote color correction and Sony professional OLEDs or HD CRTs in color correction suites for finals. OLEDs are great, and the best thing about them is the ability to easily get them color matched. We also use color matched plasmas in the same suite for color correction and checking finals. To say that one is way better than the other isn't correct, they're damn close.

It is nothing like the gulf between OLED/plasma and even the best LCDs out there.

Also, it seems you haven't realized that burn-in hasn't been an issue with plasmas since about 2006, nearly a decade.

The worst you can really expect is temporary image retention, and I've had more occurrences of IR with my S-IPS and H-IPS desktop monitors than with a plasma. It hasn't happened at all with my plasma, and this is even with static video game UI on screen for long periods of time.

"He's probably one of those plasma elitists who doesn't realize LCD's (high end) have arguably surpassed Plasma in all the categories it used to excel in. Or are at least "as good", without the worries of burn in, horrible power consumption, and poor brightness light reflection issues."

LOL... Looks back the next morning and sees that... "yup you called it". ROFL

In some threads you bash LCD in favor of OLED because of things like black level. Here you defend LCD against plasma, a similarly priced technology that side-by-side with OLED has similar black level and color characteristics. I know because I work with calibrated OLED and plasma side-by-side in color correction suites all the time (the plasma still has slightly better off-angle viewing angles btw).

What is wrong with your head that you turn everything into such a critical debate? Nowhere did I say anything about image Q on LCD being better. I said no-one cares about plasma, when you said "no-one cares about LCD" Clearly LCD sells a hell of alot and people do care about it. Plasma had too much glare and too much heat. For that alone I dont want it. Is that OK with you?

You directly claimed that nobody cares about Plasma - already clearly wrong given Taken's points. You also indirectly backed up your incest twin-brother/father Reclaimers point that people who like Plasma haven't realised that LCD has caught up or surpassed it - like it's some kind of objective truth that LCD is better (when to any informed person that is simply not the case).

If you were just talking about what you want, you wouldn't have elicited the responses you got. If you don't want a 'critical debate' - don't condescend a group of people (plasma enthusiasts) by claiming that 'nobody cares about Plasma' or that they are all failing to realise something you know.

And I say this as someone who doesn't like Plasma TV's, purely because I like bezels as thin as possible. Just improve your logic, please.

"It's fine if you don't want it, but that wasn't the claim you made.You directly claimed that nobody cares about Plasma"

I was responding to Takin who said "nobody cares about LCD". Regardless of IQ, or any other feature LCD outsells plasma by a longshot, clearly if any of the 2 arent "cared" about its Plasma.

"You also indirectly backed up your incest twin-brother/father Reclaimers point that people who like Plasma haven't realised that LCD has caught up or surpassed it - like it's some kind of objective truth that LCD is better"Actually I was backing up that he called it, what he said about Takin. If you'd bother to read before insulting, you would see that I do see plasma as a tad better IQ, but I dont like the glare therefore Its not what I want. Beyond that, I was only saying that most people buy LCD for a reason. As I mentioned, people aren't going onto the stores and saying "I want the more expensive one with the lesser IQ". It's selling for a reason.

Fair enough. This is the internet, I shouldn't be surprised people are getting so pedantic. When I said "who cares about LCD" it was an obvious figure of speech, the same way I'd say "who cares about Justin Beiber or Kesha". Sure they sell lots but they aren't good, same as LCD HDTVs. And again, forget LCDs, even Samsung's plasmas don't match up to Panasonic's. Quality and popularity are two different things.

"This is the internet, I shouldn't be surprised people are getting so pedantic"

Hey, right back at'cha on that one. ;)

I agree about Beiber and Kesha and pop in general. But that isn't a good analogy, as it's purely artistic taste. Tech is specs and price. Like I said, people aren't going into stores comparing displays and choosing the more expensive one with the lower IQ. Come on. And it isn't that people are "suckered by Best Buy salesmen " BB or any other retailer doesn't have any reason to push one or the other. They stock what sells and they well what people are wanting to buy and people are buying what looks good to them and meets their requirements. If Watching TV in the dark were my only requirement I would certainly go Plasma.

quote: Tech is specs and price. Like I said, people aren't going into stores comparing displays and choosing the more expensive one with the lower IQ.

People buy trash consumer electronics all the time. Marketing is what matters more. People cannot properly compare displays either when Best Buy and Fry's have the worst lighting conditions and TVs set on torch mode. They give nothing for people to make an informed decision with.

Specs don't factor in either, all of the "features" added to LCDs are band-aids made to try and come up to plasma level. They don't go all the way while they add cost and input lag. There is no better tech or value with "better specs". Again, all marketing.

Furhtermore, most people don't know how to properly set up their monitors to begin with. The comparison between tech and Beiber/Kesha actually works. The number of people who know how to make their TV look good and the number of people who know good music is probably pretty similar. ;)

quote: BB or any other retailer doesn't have any reason to push one or the other.

Sure they do. As I said, LCDs carry higher profit margins and cost less to ship because they weigh less, so retailers have huge incentive from manufacturers to push LCDs even over their own plasmas.

Off angle viewing is still superior on plasma, and kind of important in my room. Motion blur is still an issue, at least it was 2 years ago when I was last in the market. Also, while plasma is not as energy efficient as LCD, it is better than it used to be. I could have used my old plasma to cook breakfast, this one does not get nearly as hot. One thing that sucks though is no passive 3d on plasma, they are all active if I remember correctly. Not a big deal as 3d really hasn't caught on IMHO.

I'd love to get an LCD, and I almost did for my last set, but but then I compared the LCD I had chosen to a plasma.

Its actually amazing that people are saying the opposite here and believe it. I'm used to poor opinions from the vocal ones here here but this blows my mind. Its like I stumbled into a bunch of creationists or something, everything they say just flies in the face of objective reality. They might as well say that a Core 2 Duo is faster than a Haswell CPU.

The difference here is that this isn't even a philosophical/scientific debate, just use your eyes.

"The difference here is that this isn't even a philosophical/scientific debate, just use your eyes"

My eyes see glare and the reflection of everything in the room in front of the TV on plasma. Does that make me a creationist or just unobjective? Could it possibly be that you are looking at the issue through blinders that only see your own life, your own house and your own situation? Nah, everyone else must be blind and/or stupid.

I have large west facing windows in Southern California. If you're seeing nothing but reflections while the display is on then something is wrong. If you have a large window is directly opposite the display then obviously it would be light having a giant light being reflected and a matte LCD would be batter, but that isn't an ideal setup no matter what kind of display you have.

Every plasma I have ever seen, which is primarily in stores has the same glare. It's not just if there is a window facing it. It's always there, even under normal lighting... It's basically a mirror and you can see everything going on in the room. There isnt anything wrong with my setup or in every store I have even been in. If plasma is in the dark, its perfect, if there is any light at all, it's aweful to me, period. I don't like glossy LCD's on my laptops either for the same reason.

Do you really think that the rather large majority of people that buy TV's go into the stores and say "I think I like the more expensive one with the poorer image quality the best" and then buy it? No, LCD sells for a lot of reasons. There are benefits to it and there are negatives to Plasma. I mean, I can understand if you say the glare doesn't bug you... Why cant you understand that it does bug others? You also arent mentioning the heat. MAybe you dont feel it up on your soapbox? ;)

"Even if there was more glare on Plasma - it still wouldn't justify your comments, which were not specific to your use case - such as claims that 'nobody cares about plasma'."

There IS more glare on plasma, by a large margin and you know it. And my comments? You said it first about something that sells in much higher volumes. If there is any 1 of the 2 that no-one cares about its definitely Plasma. IQ or not.

Showrooms with warehouse style lighting and all the TVs set in torch mode are the absolute worst place to evaluate image quality.

Even a room with large west facing windows in the afternoon has better conditions with which to look at IQ.

The main place LCD has an advantage is when a window is directly opposite the display. Anything that isn't matte will be like a mirror showing that window clear as a bell. Then again, you'll get a slight diffused reflection with a matte display too. Having a window anywhere reflected in a display is bad no matter what, that's why mine is at a 90 degree orientation to my own windows which flood my living room with light in the afternoon.

quote: LCD sells for a lot of reasons.

The main one being marketing. LCDs have much higher profit margins and are cheaper to ship since they weigh less. This means that companies will do their best to market them over plasmas, even their own. This in turn drove plasma prices down to compete, at the expense of their profit margins.

The thing is that LCDs with all of the hacks to try and come up to plasma level (local dimming, motion smoothing and interpolation, etc etc) end up costing more and more as the band-aid electronics pile up (all while adding input lag which sucks for gaming). They still cost more than a plasma that looks better.

This is a golden era for plasmas, the best IQ and value they've ever had, and people are suckered in by more expensive LED-backlit local dimming 240hz nonsense. Marketing works!

You talk like you think everyone is stupid. Do you really think I haven't looked at Plasmas in plenty friends homes? Lighting does change you know. Sometimes I have this light on and sometimes that light is on. Sometimes the sun is shining on the side of the house where the TV is and the light that creeps through the wood blinds is distracting with a glossy screen. That is exactly the point. I dont want to have the glare under any circumstance, regardless of the time of day or lighting at that moment and neither do alot of people. I want the best IQ at all times and in my house with my life, LCD gives that. The slight improvement in IQ is meaningless when seen through a glare. I see it in low light on a matte screen as it is, it's just WAY more noticeable on Plasma and it bothers me. FFS, give some credit. Not everyone that chooses differently than you is ignorant.

Let me put it this way, maybe it will make more sense... My life, family and home do not revolve around my TV. My TV needs to fit into my life. Better?

Takin is the worst kind of tech elitist. If he likes something, it's the best. No if's-and's, butts. No possible alternative can be offered.

As if none of us have researched this? He says burn-in isn't an issue anymore, yet every website out there admits that while plasma's are "better", the problem isn't completely solved in all sets. Image retention is a real issue, no matter what he claims.

I mean I could go down the whole list. There's pro's and con's to everything.

Also why do I get the impression he's comparing the best plasma's to the worst LCD's?

I guess next he'll claim that Plasma's last longer than LCD's and use less power too. I mean why not, he knows everything about everything.

The fact that he's trying to argue with you about plasma vs LCD brightness tells you all you need to know. There's not a single credible source out there who's claiming Plasma's have anywhere near the brightness of LCD's. You're dead on, if there's any sunlight coming into the room or bright lights in general, the Plasma's image gets hosed.

Oh another great "feature" of Plasma's is the audible high-pitch whine the sets make when they draw more power to display bright scenes. Oh and speaking of power, my god lol, a large plasma uses 500 to 600 watts!!!

You have to love his logic as to why plasma's are dirt cheap and on their way out of the market basically. Gee you would think for such a superior premium item, someone would find a way to profit more from it.

By the way I just bought a new Ferrari for $10k today. Yup all those stupid ignorant masses buying Honda Accords and Kia's are forcing the high-end manufacturers to slash prices! Didn't you know? That's how things work in TakinVille....

LOL. I know, WTF? It's a total Deja Vu. Assume the things that are important to him are what should be important to everyone, ignore all negatives of your choice and positives of the other choice and anyone that disagrees is "ignorant".

And yes, it does suck that plasmas are losing out to the solution that is being sold more aggressively. I understand the advantage LCD has in terms of brightness and matte screens, but the number of people making truly informed decisions between the two is incredibly low.

quote: As if none of us have researched this? He says burn-in isn't an issue anymore, yet every website out there admits that while plasma's are "better", the problem isn't completely solved in all sets. Image retention is a real issue, no matter what he claims.

Image retention <> burn-in. Even LCDs have IR, not to mention worse IR than I've seen on my plasma.

quote: Also why do I get the impression he's comparing the best plasma's to the worst LCD's?

Not only am I comparing the best plasmas against the best LCDs, I'm comparing plasmas against more expensive LCDs.

Better image quality isn't going to be on the more expensive LCD, there are inherent issues to LCD that CRT, plasma, and OLED do not have.

quote: I guess next he'll claim that Plasma's last longer than LCD's and use less power too.

Plasmas are rated to last 2-3 as long as LCDs, 100k hours as opposed to 30k-60k you get with a CCFL and LED backlit LCD.

Any of these are plenty of lifespan for anyone, but plasma definitely is better in this respect. Not relevent since its so much time, but you're the one who brought it up.

I'd never say that plasmas are brighter than LCD. If brightness is more important to you than picture quality, go for it. You'd need an incredibly bright room with no curtains and sun going right on the monitor for this to be that important through. I have sun in my living room most of the day and a plasma is fine.

quote: Oh another great "feature" of Plasma's is the audible high-pitch whine the sets make when they draw more power to display bright scenes. Oh and speaking of power, my god lol, a large plasma uses 500 to 600 watts!!!

What decade are you living in, whine hasn't been a problem for years. As for power, right now a beautiful 60" Panasonic plasma will average about 150w.

600 watts, where are you getting these numbers from?

quote: You have to love his logic as to why plasma's are dirt cheap and on their way out of the market basically. Gee you would think for such a superior premium item, someone would find a way to profit more from it.

Samsung and Panasonic will market their cheaper to produce and ship LCDs over their own plasmas despite plasma's superior image quality. This is well known and it isn't rocket science. This is why people who want the best image quality will get a plasma, and why people who either don't know any better or who value brightness will get an LCD instead.

I'm surprised how angry you are about the simple stating of objective advantages of a technology, especially one that costs as much as or is cheaper than the "high end" version of something else. You should chill.

You make it sound like plasmas are as sensitive to lighting conditions as a projector. It simply isn't the case. Once you have the picture on the reflections aren't there in most practical situations.

I understand if brightness and reflections are an issue, but you make it sound so absolute. LCD is an objectively extreme downgrade in picture quality but believe me, I do understand if there are legit physical constraints preventing you from having one.

Do you have windows directly opposite your screen? Did CRTs just drive you nuts ten years ago?

quote: Thier LCD tv's are sweet. Who cares, other than almost everyone? Plasma is what no-one cares about.

Plasma is what anyone who cares about good image quality cares about. You'd get laughed off any AV or professional forum for that post.

Sad that so many people with no concept of quality got suckered by Best Buy salesmen and the marketing these companies pushed simply because LCDs are cheaper to produce.

The weird thing is that Samsung's plasmas are second rate compared to Panasonic's. It makes sense given that Panasonic used to make Pioneer's Elite plasma panels, but they've continued to improve their plasma displays while Samsung just sits on it.

It seems to be a pattern with them, releasing second-rate products at a first rate price.

I say "who cares about LCD" in the same way that someone would say "who cares about Justin Beiber".

Just because something is popular doesn't mean that its good. I work with the latest and greatest in display technology for a living, I have a pretty good idea what is good and what isn't. LCD HDTVs are objectively the worst option out there. Just because you see so many of them being sold in a Best Buy or Frys doesn't mean that they're good, quite the opposite.

I remember one time you were saying "gosh, I wish I could get black levels like I do on my phone". Well, get a Panasonic plasma, you'll get all that plus much better color calibration and image quality. I reckon you're not interested in having "the best" though, just picking a fight on the internet so you can defend your purchases. Its funny how people deny themselves of better things so that they can be "right".

You are amazing... So many conclusions jumped it isnt even funny. Like with phones, you see someone that thinks different and you use it to jump on your soapbox and start your rants... Seriously READ before posting. I didnt say the IQ was better on LCD. I said Samsung LCD's are sweet and that no-one cares about Plasma. It's time is passing. Reclaimer said "He's probably one of those plasma elitists who doesn't realize LCD's (high end) have arguably surpassed Plasma in all the categories it used to excel in. Or are at least "as good", without the worries of burn in, horrible power consumption, and poor brightness light reflection issues." and I have to agree with most of that... Mostly becasue he called you correctly LOL.

The fact is not alot of people care about plasma. Not alot of people buy them anymore. I specifically dont want it for 2 reasons. The aweful glare and the heat put out. I live in AZ and the room where our TV is in doesn't get great airflow from the AC and it gets hot. Beyond that, the glare on plasma screens is beyond acceptable to me... Period. IQ means zero if I see glare all day. If I look at the 2 side by side in a store (where the glare issue isnt a problem) I can see that Plasma looks a slight tad better, but its lows dont balance its highs for me. Some of the high end LCD's are quite nice for the past few years at least a very good combo of all things, not just things you seem to care about. Now get off your soapbox and stop your IQ Nazi crap. Some people have to look at all aspects and dont fit into the same tidy package that you do.

Heat hasn't been an issue for years. The first time I saw the 2011 Panasonic plasmas at CES I was amazed. Not only did it have IQ comparable to the Pioneer Elites from a few years before, they put out NO HEAT.

As in, I put my hand in front of and behind a plasma that had been running all day and I couldn't feel a thing. It was a far cry from my own plasma which does put out heat. So that issue with plasmas, gone, all while they maintain their display advantages against LCD.

Nothing else Reclaimer said in regard to IQ was called correctly either, burn-in hasn't been an issue for almost ten years. Temporary image retention is a possibility, but that isn't a real issue, and I've had more issues with that on LCDs than my own plasma.

Evaluating TVs set on torch mode in a showroom with warehouse lighting is the absolute worst place to evaluate displays.

I'm not being malicious in any way when I call you ignorant here. That isn't a negative about your character or you as a person, you just literally have no idea what you're talking about here.

"Heat hasn't been an issue for years.The first time I saw the 2011 Panasonic plasmas at CES I was amazed. Not only did it have IQ comparable to the Pioneer Elites from a few years before, they put out NO HEAT. "

Good to hear... I am set for the next few years. I wont be buying again until 4K's are standardized and much cheaper. I will certainly fairly evaluate all tech on the market at that time.

I'm still hoping that OLED comes down enough to be viable on desktops. I love that they deliver such accurate color and deep black, and that they're so small. My biggest issue with plasma is that it is completely unsuitable for desktop use since the smallest ones are still massive. OLED is small and looks amazing.

I just ain't dropping 25k on one. ;) They are fun to use for work though.